The opportunities item response theory (IRT) offers to health psychologists : Methods in Health Psychology Symposium IV

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Duration of Effectiveness Evaluation of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Centrally Authorised Medicinal Products in the EU Between 2012 and 2021

Introduction:In studies evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs), the need for speed must be properly balanced with the quality of the study. We assessed the duration of aRMM effectiveness evaluations, using additional pharmacovigilance activities, for centrally authorised medicinal products in the European Union. Methods: We established a cohort of medicinal products with aRMMs at marketing authorisation (MA) that were centrally authorised from July 2012–December 2021 using the European Public Assessment Reports. Evaluation studies were identified from the Risk Management Plans at the time of MA. Subsequently, we retrieved protocols, final study reports, Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment reports, and PRAC minutes. We calculated the probability of completing an effectiveness evaluation within 60 months after MA using time-to-event analyses. Besides, we compared the planned final report with the actual final report date. Results: We identified 134 medicinal products authorised with aRMMs, of which almost half (n = 63, 47.0%) had an effectiveness evaluation study. The probability of an evaluation for a medicinal product being completed within 60 months after MA was 20.7% (95% CI 6.8–32.6). Regarding study design, the probability of completing a study was higher for cross-sectional studies when compared to cohort studies (p = 0.002). Moreover, 81.0% of studies were delayed when compared to their planned final report date. Conclusion: The probability of completing an aRMM effectiveness evaluation at time for renewal of the MA was only one in five. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of studies around MA are too optimistic, with the majority being delayed.</p

Mandatory requirements for pediatric drug development in the EU and the US for novel drugs-A comparative study

Mandatory pediatric legislation has been implemented in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to increase research and the availability of drugs for the pediatric population. Differences in the legislative framework can cause different pediatric requirements for similar indications granted for similar drugs across jurisdictions. This cross-sectional study compares the pediatric requirements for therapeutic indications granted at the time of initial approval for novel drugs approved in the two regions from 2010 to 2018. We collected the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions to grant a waiver and/or to agree on a pediatric development plan and deferrals hereof at marketing authorization (MA) from publicly available documents. An agreed pediatric development plan was required for 66% ( N = 188/285) and 63% ( N = 134/212) of the indications granted in the EU and the US at the time of approval, respectively. Almost all (EU; 98%, US; 89%) were deferred until after MA. Based on the broad scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation, an additional 36 PIPs originated from the indications granted at MA. In the subset of indications granted for drugs approved in both the EU and the US ( N = 232), significantly more indications resulted in an agreed pediatric development plan for one or more subsets of the pediatric population in the EU ( N = 185) as compared to the US ( N = 82). This was based on the exemption of orphan designated drugs in the US and the broader scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, indications subject to the mandatory pediatric legislation in both regions ( N = 131) most often had similar regulatory requirements for the inclusion of the pediatric population from the EMA and the US FDA (83%, N = 109). In conclusion, when comparing mandatory pediatric requirements, more pediatric development plans were agreed upon in the EU than in the US, in line with the broader mandates of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, authorities most often had similar regulatory requirements when an indication was subject to pediatric legislation in both regions

Effect of dupilumab on hand eczema in patients with atopic dermatitis:An observational study

Systemic treatment options for chronic hand eczema are limited. Dupilumab is used in atopic dermatitis (AD) but is not licensed for (isolated) hand eczema. In this observational prospective study we aimed to determine the response of hand eczema to dupilumab in patients with AD. Adult patients with hand eczema and AD received dupilumab s.c. at a 600 mg loading dose, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Primary outcome was a minimum improvement of 75% on the Hand Eczema Severity Index after 16 weeks (HECSI-75). Secondary outcomes were severity, measured using the Photographic guide; quality of life improvement as patient-reported outcome, measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); and AD severity, measured using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI). Forty-seven patients were included (32 males; mean age, 45 years). HECSI-75 was achieved by 28 (60%). Mean HECSI score reduction was 49.2 points (range, 0-164; 95% within-subject confidence interval, 46.4-52.0), which was already significantly decreased after 4 weeks (P < 0.001). DLQI score mean improvement was 8.8 points (standard deviation [SD], 6.0) or 70.0% decrease (SD, 26.4) (P < 0.001). Eighteen patients (38%) were classified as responders on the Photographic guide. There was no difference in response between chronic fissured and recurrent vesicular clinical subtypes. Similar percentages of patients achieving EASI-75 and HECSI-75 were seen after 16 weeks. In conclusion, this study shows a favorable response of hand eczema to dupilumab in patients with AD. This raises the question whether a response will also be seen in isolated hand eczema

Процедура селекции ридж-регрессионных моделей

Исследована эффективность процедуры селекции регрессионных моделей в случае неопределённости структуры модели, аппроксимируемой ридж-регрессией.Досліджена ефективність процедури селекції регресійних моделей в разі невизначеності структури моделі, що апроксимується рідж-регресією.Efficiency of procedure of selection of regressive models is investigational in the case of vagueness of model structure, by the approximated ridge-regression

Guidance for pediatric use in prescription information for novel medicinal products in the EU and the US

Pediatric legislations in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have increased medicines approved for use in the pediatric population. Despite many similarities between these frameworks, the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators with a mandate to require pediatric drug development for novel medicinal products compared to US regulators. If used, this could give rise to differences in the guidance for pediatric use provided for clinicians in the two regions. However, the level of discordance in the guidance for pediatric use between the two regions is unknown. This cross-sectional study compares guidance for pediatric use in the EU Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and the US Prescription Information (USPI) on the level of indications granted for novel medicinal products approved after the pediatric legislations came in to force in both regions. For all indications granted as of March 2020 for novel medicinal products approved in both regions between 2010 and 2018, we compared the guidance for pediatric use in the EU SmPC and the USPI. The guidance for pediatric use differed for 18% (61/348) of the listed indications covering 21% (45/217) of the products, but without the guidance being contradictory. Where guidance differed, an equal share was observed for indications with a higher level of information for pediatric use in one region over the other (49% (30/61) in the US; 51% (31/61) in the EU). The discrepancies in pediatric information could be explained by differences in regulations for 21% (13/61) of the indications. Only a few conditions and diseases (EU n = 4; US n = 1) were observed to cover potential pediatric use outside the approved adult indication. Although the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators a mandate for requiring pediatric drug development as compared to the US PREA, this was not reflected in the prescription information approved by the two regulatory authorities

Data management and data analysis techniques in pharmacoepidemiological studies using a pre-planned multi-database approach : a systematic literature review

PurposeTo identify pharmacoepidemiological multi-database studies and to describe data management and data analysis techniques used for combining data. MethodsSystematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase complemented by a manual literature search. We included pharmacoepidemiological multi-database studies published from 2007 onwards that combined data for a pre-planned common analysis or quantitative synthesis. Information was retrieved about study characteristics, methods used for individual-level analyses and meta-analyses, data management and motivations for performing the study. ResultsWe found 3083 articles by the systematic searches and an additional 176 by the manual search. After full-text screening of 75 articles, 22 were selected for final inclusion. The number of databases used per study ranged from 2 to 17 (median=4.0). Most studies used a cohort design (82%) instead of a case-control design (18%). Logistic regression was most often used for individual-level analyses (41%), followed by Cox regression (23%) and Poisson regression (14%). As meta-analysis method, a majority of the studies combined individual patient data (73%). Six studies performed an aggregate meta-analysis (27%), while a semi-aggregate approach was applied in three studies (14%). Information on central programming or heterogeneity assessment was missing in approximately half of the publications. Most studies were motivated by improving power (86%). ConclusionsPharmacoepidemiological multi-database studies are a well-powered strategy to address safety issues and have increased in popularity. To be able to correctly interpret the results of these studies, it is important to systematically report on database management and analysis techniques, including central programming and heterogeneity testing. (c) 2015 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Peer reviewe

Use of systemic therapies in adults with atopic dermatitis:12-month results from the European prospective observational study in patients eligible for systemic therapy for atopic dermatitis (EUROSTAD)

Background The European Prospective Observational Study in Patients Eligible for Systemic Therapy for Atopic Dermatitis (EUROSTAD) is an ongoing observational study aiming to describe characteristics of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with systemic therapy over time and the management of their disease in a real-world setting. Methods Data from patients enrolled in EUROSTAD between March 2017 and April 2019 were analyzed for systemic therapy use and treatment change over 12 months. Results 288 patients reported taking systemic medications; 42.7% received cyclosporine, 35.3% dupilumab, 28.1% methotrexate, 25.4% oral corticosteroids, 6.8% azathioprine, 6.1% injectable corticosteroids, and 3.4% mycophenolate. The median duration of treatment was 1.1 months for oral systemic corticosteroids, 3.2 months for injectable corticosteroids, 4.8 months for cyclosporine, 7.3 months for methotrexate, and 14.9 months for dupilumab. The most frequent reasons for stopping treatment included lack of efficacy, patient decision, adverse events, and disease well controlled. Conclusion The 12-month interim EUROSTAD study analysis highlights the current trends and outcomes of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD. Among all systemic treatments for AD, dupilumab was the least likely to be discontinued, whereas cyclosporine and corticosteroids, whilst effective, were primarily limited to episodic flare management consistent with treatment guidelines

Challenges and Opportunities for Companies to Build HTA/Payer Perspectives Into Drug Development Through the Use of a Dynamic Target Product Profile

Background: The target product profile (TPP) outlines the desired profile of a target product aimed at a particular disease and is used by companies to plan clinical development. Considering the increasing importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in informing reimbursement decisions, a robust TPP needs to be built to address HTA needs, to guide an integrated evidence generation plan that will support HTA submissions. This study assessed current practices and experiences of companies in building HTA considerations into TPP development. Methods: An opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2019, as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies’ strategies and experiences in building HTA considerations into the TPP. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/Market Access Departments at 18 top international pharmaceutical companies. Results: 11 companies responded to the survey. All companies included HTA requirements in TPP development, but the timing and process varied. The key focus of HTA input related to health problems and treatment pathways, clinical efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Variance of HTA methods and different value frameworks were identified as a challenge for development plans. Stakeholder engagement, such as HTA scientific advice, was used to pressure test the TPP. Conclusion: This research provides insight into current practice and potential opportunities for value-based drug development. It demonstrates the evolution of the TPP to encompass HTA requirements and suggests that the TPP could have a role as an iterative communication tool for use with HTA agencies to enhance an integrated evidence generation plan

Duration of Effectiveness Evaluation of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Centrally Authorised Medicinal Products in the EU Between 2012 and 2021

Introduction: In studies evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs), the need for speed must be properly balanced with the quality of the study. We assessed the duration of aRMM effectiveness evaluations, using additional pharmacovigilance activities, for centrally authorised medicinal products in the European Union. Methods: We established a cohort of medicinal products with aRMMs at marketing authorisation (MA) that were centrally authorised from July 2012–December 2021 using the European Public Assessment Reports. Evaluation studies were identified from the Risk Management Plans at the time of MA. Subsequently, we retrieved protocols, final study reports, Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment reports, and PRAC minutes. We calculated the probability of completing an effectiveness evaluation within 60 months after MA using time-to-event analyses. Besides, we compared the planned final report with the actual final report date. Results: We identified 134 medicinal products authorised with aRMMs, of which almost half (n = 63, 47.0%) had an effectiveness evaluation study. The probability of an evaluation for a medicinal product being completed within 60 months after MA was 20.7% (95% CI 6.8–32.6). Regarding study design, the probability of completing a study was higher for cross-sectional studies when compared to cohort studies (p = 0.002). Moreover, 81.0% of studies were delayed when compared to their planned final report date. Conclusion: The probability of completing an aRMM effectiveness evaluation at time for renewal of the MA was only one in five. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of studies around MA are too optimistic, with the majority being delayed